4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in St. Petersburg.
5.  On 1 March 1994 a State-owned construction company “Lengidroenergospetsstroy” (промышленное строительно-монтажное объединение «Ленгидроэнергоспецстрой», hereinafter “LenGESS”) and a private investment company “Severo-Zapadniy Soyuz” (АОЗТ ТПК «Северо-Западный Союз», hereinafter “SZS”) signed a contract, pursuant to which the LenGESS undertook to build a block of flats in St. Petersburg and the SZS was to finance the construction in part. By way of consideration, the SZS was to receive title to a certain number of flats in the completed construction. In order to raise funds, the SZS collected money from private investors who were to become the eventual owners of the flats.
6.  On 21 November 1994 the applicant signed a contract for the purchase of a flat with the SZS.
7.  On 8 December 1995 the applicant paid the stipulated price in full.
8.  It appears that, once the block of flats had been built, the LenGESS refused to transfer the stipulated number of flats to the SZS, claiming that the funding raised by the latter had been insufficient. In December 1997, the SZS sued the LenGESS before the Kuybyshevskiy District Court of St. Petersburg, seeking enforcement of the 1994 contract.
9.  On 5 May 1999, according to the applicant, or on 19 October 1999, according to the Government, the applicant entered the proceedings before the Kuybyshevskiy District Court as a co-plaintiff against the LenGESS, seeking to obtain title to the flat for which she had paid.
10.  On an unspecified date the Kuybyshevskiy District Court fixed a hearing for 24 December 1999, it was subsequently adjourned until 28 February 2000.
11.  On 10 May 2000 the Kuybyshevskiy District Court discontinued the proceedings, finding that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim and that the dispute was to be adjudicated by the commercial courts.
12.  On 29 June 2000 the St. Petersburg City Court accepted the appeals by the SZS, the applicant and the other co-plaintiffs, quashed the decision of 10 May 2000 and remitted the matter to the Kuybyshevskiy District Court for examination on the merits. It also issued a “special finding” (частное определение) concerning the judge of the Kuybyshevskiy District Court to whom the case had been assigned, in which it noted her manifest failure to observe the rules of civil procedure as regards compliance with procedural time-limits.
13.  On 17 November 2000, 7 February, 23 March and 1 June 2001 hearings before the Kyubyshevskiy District Court were held.
14.  On 28 September 2001 the Kuybyshevskiy District Court of St. Petersburg delivered the judgment. The claims of all plaintiffs were dismissed on the ground that they had never paid any sums directly to the LenGESS.
15.  The applicant, among others, appealed against the judgment of 28 September 2001.
16.  On an unspecified date the Kuybyshevskiy District Court listed an appeal hearing for 13 November 2001 and sent the case-file to the city court. It appears that the district court had not determined certain issues concerning court fees by 13 November 2001 and for that reason the city court had to adjourn the appeal hearing and send the case-file back to the District Court. A new appeal hearing was fixed for 21 March 2002.
17.  On 21 March 2002 the St. Petersburg City Court quashed the judgment of 28 September 2001 and remitted the case to the Kuybyshevskiy District Court.
18.  On an unspecified date the Kuybyshevskiy District Court invited a private company ZAO “Unikom” (закрытое акционерное общество «Уником», hereinafter – “Unikom”) to enter as a co-defendant to the proceedings.
19.  On 29 May, 27 June and 14 September 2002 the Kuybyshevskiy District Court held further hearings.
20.  Meanwhile, on 10 September 2002 the St. Petersburg Commercial Court opened bankruptcy proceedings in respect of the SZS.
21.  On 24 September 2002 the Kuybyshevskiy District Court referred the claim against the LenGESS to the St. Petersburg Commercial Court. It held that the dispute involving legal entities was to be adjudicated by a commercial court.
22.  On 3 December 2002 the St. Petersburg Commercial Court discontinued the proceedings, holding that the matter was to be examined in the bankruptcy proceedings initiated on 10 September 2002.
23.  On 11 March 2003 the Appeals Division of the St. Petersburg Commercial Court quashed the decision of 3 December 2002 and remitted the case to the first instance division for examination on the merits.
24.  On 26 May 2003 the St. Petersburg Commercial Court referred the case to the Kuybyshevskiy District Court, noting that the dispute involved individuals and that it was therefore appropriate for determination by a court of general jurisdiction.
25.  On 18 August 2003 the Kuybyshevskiy District Court received the case-file. On 6 October and 23 December 2003 hearings were held.
26.  On 23 December 2003 the court fixed a new hearing date for 2 March 2004.
27.  Between 2 March and 24 December 2004 the Kyubyshevskiy District Court scheduled eight hearings, at least half of them were adjourned for various reasons.
28.  On 27 May 2005 the Kuybyshevskiy District Court ordered that the “Unikom” company should pay the applicant USD 26,985.50 and dismissed the remainder of her claims.
29.  On 10 August 2005 the St. Petersburg City Court upheld the judgment of 27 May 2005 on appeal.